If Chomsky himself does not follow the ideas he propounds, then what he says about “nature of our economy, society, etc.” is all hot air as he’s not willing to follow through those abstract ideals and put them in practise.

Dictionary
com·mod·i·fy (kə-mŏd’ə-fī’)
tr.v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
To turn into or treat as a commodity; make commercial: “Such music . . . commodifies the worst sorts of . . . stereotypes” (Michiko Kakutani).

[COMMODI(TY) + –FY.]

No one is questioning his right to own a copyright. What is in question here is his insistance that others do not/should not have that right. Again, the question is not whether he has a right to invest and create trust funds, what is in question is his insistance that others do not have that right.

“I am sure, a thousand credible counters can be given to Schweizer’s article. — provided the necessary research and interpretations are done”

However, I dont think it is worth it because “I agree with the contradiction pointed out by Schweizer”.

The man is making a point - and I dont see any reason not to take it. I only have problems with the boldfacing and underlining, and that doesnt matter.

“The rational tone of the comments by amit, ravikiran in support of their views is slightly missing from the words of Peter Schweizer. He sounds partisan. ”

I don’t know about the rational tone of amit and ravi, but i got the exact same feeling when i read Schweizer’s article. It had a partisan and over-the-board tone to it. To draw parallel, it was like watching Sun TV (owned by Karunanidhi’s family) on a news item regarding Jayalalitha’s corruption.

I am sure, a thousand credible counters can be given to Schweizer’s article.

On the same note, I agree with the contradiction pointed out by Schweizer in Chomsky’s attitude towards trusts etc.

If commodification refers to Chomsky’s drive to make his ideas known through constant reiteration and by providing massive amounts of references about them, then any writer who assertively makes a point is guilty of trying to ‘commodify himself’. The more important question concerns the image which people have of him. It can be argued that it’s the people who are commodifying Chomsky through idolatry. He is merely presenting his ideas in a forceful manner, in a way that he deems fit. If people are taking his word as dogma and attaching a brand value to them, it’s really their problem, not his. In fact, this would be a part of the general hero-worship of him that people indulge in. In his works that I have read, I have not come across Chomsky saying something to the effect of ‘This is important because I say it’. In fact, that is precisely what drew me to his writings. A lot of the things which he says are ‘elementary’ (although the kind of elusive elementary concepts that we find elementary only in retrospect). Much of what he says can be gleaned through common sense, and by keeping your eyes open and your mind alert. Much of what he says can be understood if we read the everyday news intelligently and critically. You can hate Chomsky and still check up on his references objectively and agree with many things that he says. You certainly don’t have to believe in something because Chomsky says it. A lot of his references are accessible, especially in today’s Internet age, and so can be verified quite independently of him. So I believe that Chomsky does not try to ‘commodify’ himself. If any one, it’s the people who worship him that do so. Hero-worship is largely the people’s fault, not the hero’s. In fact, given the critical and objective thinking that Chomsky encourages his readers to do, he would never approve of any hero-worship. In a Berkeley talk a few years ago, he said (in rough paraphrase), “People come to hear me talk and would believe me because I am a Professor from MIT. That is nonsense. They should hear me speak and then think about what I have said, making up their own mind quite independently of who I am”. In fact, Chomsky’s attitudes are exactly those that are supposed to prevail in scientific and unbiased thinking.

the statements about getting his articles and speeches for a fee look one-sided. Do a Google search and see how many of his important articles and audio interviews you can get for free. There are also many video clips which you can see for free. So there is actually more of a case that you can make here for the number of articles and clips of his that are freely available. Again, as far as his name is concerned, it would only be a servile and easily swayed reader who will assume that a book is great only because it has Chomsky’s name on it. So again, I think the burden of answerability is more on the readers. Also, I can see that this is a good example of how the publishers are manufacturing the consent of readers by using Chomsky’s name, something that Chomsky has constantly written about. Regarding the high fee for his public speeches, first of all, there are many professional speakers who charge that kind of fee for speeches. I don’t know the exact nature of the fee structure for professional speakers, but one can think of reasons why he charges a high fee. The simple goal may be to filter the number of requests for speeches that he gets. I am sure that someone like Chomsky must be getting hundreds of requests for speeches and interviews almost every day. If the usual systems of filtering based on priority don’t work and if he is still getting deluged with requests, I would not be surprised if monetary filters are the only ones that can be used to restrict the number of talks that he gives. And again, all this argument is only assuming that there is something inherently wrong or ‘capitalist’ in charging a high fee for giving a public speech. Also as before, the analysis seems to be neglecting the number of free talks he has given.

Regarding Chomsky’s capitalizing on 9/11 etc., If Chomsky did all this, at most, it would be all right to call him an opportunist. Firstly, how does that make him an ardent capitalist by default? Secondly, by that token, all of us are opportunists. Wouldn’t all of us like to do something at the right place and the right time to maximize the impact of our opinions and thoughts? Chomsky seems to have simply done that. Again, as for the fee, he could have done that precisely because he was in greater demand and wanted to limit the number of speeches that he would need to give.

As for Chomsky’s views about the Khmer Rouge, yes, he did receive flak for them. But firstly, they constitute only a small part of his work over the years, and everybody can make mistakes. Many of his references are verifiable, about many diverse matters. Secondly, it is very much true that the US media vastly overinflated the discussion of the Khmer Rouge horrors, unspeakable as they were, and almost completely stifled the coverage of the also horrific Indonesian invasion of East Timor whose consequences were being seen at the same time.

Lastly, an observation- Peter Schweizer has written two other books, one on the Bush dynasty, and the other one on the Reagan dynasty, and both have received reviews from Publishers Weekly, which point to the fact that they seem biased. His book from which the Chomsky critique has been picked, itself has has been said to be something which is less of a critique of liberal ideology, and more of fodder for ad hominem bloggers. (Amazon)

Let me emphasize that I am not saying that the opinions or statements of Peter Schweizer are false. I only think that they cannot provide a conclusive picture of Chomsky being a closet capitalist, and they lay too much emphasis on the man himself rather than his deeds. Men live and die, but it’s their ideas which endure. If Chomsky’s models endure, after a hundred years, his personal life’s activities as such would be a footnote to a footnote, compared to the discussion of his ideas. Even if he does do the things noted above, the motivations could be very different from what have been assumed. Quibbling over the above-mentioned traits of Noam Chomsky, would be, I think, doing a great disservice to his work and the body of knowledge he has erected, on which we should really be spending our time. Irrespective of what Chomsky does, it would be a good idea to consult his references and read his words. The proof of the pudding is in its eating, not in the private life of the cook.

http://ashujo.blogspot.com